Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[John Mekki]

Which they should not do, as we do not know what Assange may or may not do in the future.

They may issue a statement about the crimes that Assange has allegedly committed in the past and related to the leak of information affair.

Actually I'm a currently serving member of the United States Army Reserve; my MOS is 35D, which is All-Source Intelligence, and I am a captain. So yes, I am actually a part of the US Government, and can therefore have a better idea than you what the government's stance on Assange is.

Sorry to tell you, my dear, but being a captain you count nothing in this story.
You may know something more than me about this case as you have studied it as any other person could have, but you have no political, economical and weight whatsoever in deciding whether this should be or not an US case and/or related considerations.
You are just one of the millions of people that the 1000~2000 people who have the power (and you are not among them) can direct

The "guarantee" which has been requested by both Assange and the Ecuadorian government is that the US will NEVER seek to extradite Assange to the US, a guarantee which is impossible to make.

It is possible to guarantee that the US will never seek to extradite Assange for crimes committed in the past and related to Wikileaks and leak of confidential information

The fact that Assange finds that insufficient is due to his own paranoia and narcissism, as previously stated. The US has no dog in the current fight; that's the plain and simple truth.

Not only Assange, maybe Correa and some other head of state and several hundreds of intellectuals may be included in the list of your "paranoids"

Actually, no you may not. Again, I am a currently serving member of the US Military and as such am considered a representative of the US in many ways. If anything, the "oversized ego" in this case is on YOUR part, as you are claiming things you have absolutely no evidence to back up with virtually every post you make. Pot, meet kettle.

Even a cop that patrols the streets is a representative of the State, in many ways.
Do you assume that he/she has any weight whatsoever in the political decisions of that country?
Do you really think that you and your personal opinions have any weight whatsoever to influence the outcome of this affair?
Really?

But we are speaking of the present. Right now, the US is not interested in seeking any charges against Assange.

And this is your personal word, which, alas, counts more or less nothing.
Well, not exactly, your word counts exactly nothing.

Again, pot, meet kettle. And I am part of the US Government. Granted, you had no way of knowing that, but it's best not to assume things you have no evidence for. Just saying.

Oh my, my..
Please get down to Planet Earth, please..

 

[Sabrina]

Well, it's fairly evident that John has no idea how the justice system works.

Therefore, welcome to my ignore list. I refuse to debate with someone who is so willfully ignorant.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I really don't see the comparison between the two cases.

Pinochet was an ex-Head of State accused of crimes commited while he was a HOS, Assange is not and never has been a HOS and is accused of crimes commited while a civilian.

Pinochet was wanted for extradition to a country that did not have any clear legitimate Jurisdiction over the place where the alleged crimes occured. Assange is wanted for extradition by the exact country in which the crimes allegedly occured, thus there is no Jurisdiction issues.

Phinochet's lawyers argued that Phinochet's advanced age and mental condition made him unsuitable for trial. Assange's lawyers argued that it was all a conspiracy.

Each of these three things made the Phinochet extradition difficult and a major legal minefield to navigate. The Assange extradition had none of them and in the end is extremely clear cut. This seems to be why his supporters have to add in all the bits of conspriacy to the case since the headline:

Allegded Rapist Fights Extradition By Hiding In Embassy​

just doesn't play out well for them.

 

[John Mekki]

I really don't see the comparison between the two cases.

Pinochet was an ex-Head of State accused of crimes commited while he was a HOS, Assange is not and never has been a HOS and is accused of crimes commited while a civilian.

Pinochet was wanted for extradition to a country that did not have any clear legitimate Jurisdiction over the place where the alleged crimes occured. Assange is wanted for extradition by the exact country in which the crimes allegedly occured, thus there is no Jurisdiction issues.

Phinochet's lawyers argued that Phinochet's advanced age and mental condition made him unsuitable for trial. Assange's lawyers argued that it was all a conspiracy.

Each of these three things made the Phinochet extradition difficult and a major legal minefield to navigate. The Assange extradition had none of them and in the end is extremely clear cut. This seems to be why his supporters have to add in all the bits of conspriacy to the case since the headline:

Allegded Rapist Fights Extradition By Hiding In Embassy​

just doesn't play out well for them.

Sure there are differences between the two cases.
Same way there are differences between spitting on another person` s face and putting a bullet in the leg on another completely different person.
If some one tells you that it would be OK to fine 50 dollars the former offender and do not do absolutely nothing on about the latter offender you would probably be absolutely fine, as long two cases are completely unrelated to each other.
I would not.

 

[tyr_13]

Sure there are differences between the two cases.
Same way there are differences between spitting on another person` s face and putting a bullet in the leg on another completely different person.
If some one tells you that it would be OK to fine 50 dollars the former offender and do not do absolutely nothing on about the latter offender you would probably be absolutely fine, as long two cases are completely unrelated to each other.
I would not.

This is known as a 'hand wave', a type of red herring. 'Yeah they're different' and then you make up an analogy that isn't actually analogous. The reason the two cases in your example are treated differently is the magnitude of the action. That is NOT the same reason given to you for why the two real life cases are different and being treated differently. So you constructed an analogy go give the appearance that you were addressing the explanation when in reality you dodged it.

Also the reasoning is still unsound. You are still saying that it would be alright to let one go because the other one was let go. That's still just plain wrong. What that leads to is no one ever being extradited. It's why that reasoning is not employed.

 

[John Mekki]

You are still saying that it would be alright to let one go because the other one was let go. .

Where did I say that?

 

[tyr_13]

Where did I say that?

It's implicit in your reasoning.

Or you think that Assange should be extradited.

 

[John Mekki]

It's implicit in your reasoning.

Ah.. I see.
Maybe I have never said that, but it was "implicit in [my] reasoning"

Interesting

 

[tyr_13]

Ah.. I see.
Maybe I have never said that, but it was "implicit in [my] reasoning"

Interesting

Yes. What are you having trouble with? You're arguing that Assange shouldn't be extradited, correct?

 

[John Mekki]

Yes. What are you having trouble with? You're arguing that Assange shouldn't be extradited, correct?

Please, would you stop put in my mouth things I have never said?
This would be helpful for both, thanks.

 

[tyr_13]

Please, would you stop put in my mouth things I have never said?
This would be helpful for both, thanks.

So you think that he should be extradited. In that case, yes, perhaps that other man should have as well.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sure there are differences between the two cases.
Same way there are differences between spitting on another person` s face and putting a bullet in the leg on another completely different person.
If some one tells you that it would be OK to fine 50 dollars the former offender and do not do absolutely nothing on about the latter offender you would probably be absolutely fine, as long two cases are completely unrelated to each other.
I would not.

Well of course not, we've already established that your arguments are grossly fallacious and tiresome.

Person 1 shoots another in the leg.
Person 2 spits in somebody else's face
Person 1 gets off for reasons having nothing to do with person 2
therefore
what, champ, person 2 should get off too? That is idiocy.

Thanks for posting.

Did you hear that anonymous turned on Assange?

 

[nathan]

Please, would you stop put in my mouth things I have never said?
This would be helpful for both, thanks.

Well, if you could be clear and precise about what your problem with the JA extradition process is, that would be helpful.

What exactly is your problem with extraditing JA to Sweden?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Sure there are differences between the two cases.

You should have stopped here. The legal differences in the cases is what led to the different results in the cases.

Same way there are differences between spitting on another person` s face and putting a bullet in the leg on another completely different person.

You are trying to turn multiple legal differences in both cases into just one of magnitude, it simply doesn't work like that.

If some one tells you that it would be OK to fine 50 dollars the former offender and do not do absolutely nothing on about the latter offender you would probably be absolutely fine, as long two cases are completely unrelated to each other.

Depends entirely on the situation. Did the person who alledgedly shot the other's leg do it in self defence? I'd have no problem with them walking free if so. Can they resonably understand their actions? If not, then they shouldn't be tried. Were they under 16? Was it provably an accident? Do those bringing the charges for the shooting actually have the right to do so? Any of these could result in the person alledged to have shot someone getting a lighter or even no punishment compared to a spitter.

I would not.

Then you are either not interested in learning or you think that trials should be judged according to the magnitude of the accusation, and not the actual law itself. Either way, you are on very shakey ground.

So, do you think that Assange should give himself up and be extradited to face the accusations of rape and sexual mollestation?

 

[000063]

Please, would you stop put in my mouth things I have never said?
This would be helpful for both, thanks.

That's not actual a denial. Or even an answer.

Well of course not, we've already established that your arguments are grossly fallacious and tiresome.

Person 1 shoots another in the leg.
Person 2 spits in somebody else's face
Person 1 gets off for reasons having nothing to do with person 2
therefore
what, champ, person 2 should get off too? That is idiocy.

Thanks for posting.

Did you hear that anonymous turned on Assange?

Strictly speaking, they turned on Wikileaks for supporting him instead of doing their job. They don't even think he's a criminal, they just think WL is off-message.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/12/anonymous-distances-itself-wikileaks

We have been worried about the direction WikiLeaks is going for a while. In the recent month the focus moved away from actual leaks and the fight for freedom of information further and further while it concentrated more and more on Julian Assange. It goes without saying that we oppose any plans of extraditing Julian to the USA. He is a content provider and publisher, not a criminal.​

 

[Sabrina]

I have to wonder here...

Anonymous has thus far proven their capabilities when it comes to hacking into places, given the number of places they've hacked and exposed dirty little secrets the companies or persons in question didn't want exposed. Why then has Anonymous not made the effort to see if they can hack into the DoJ to find out what plans, if any, the USG has for Assange?

Could it be that they have and they found out that no one is actively pursuing Assange? That instead he's merely listed as someone to keep an eye on but not actively go after?

I mean, I obviously cannot speak for the USG's ultimate goals regarding Assange... but given my status as an intelligence officer, I know that, were I the one advising the higher-ups about the whole situation, I personally would advocate a "wait and watch" type of stance rather than any sort of active pursuit. Guys like Assange always screw up eventually, and given that the end results of Wikileaks putting out the information that Manning provided were negligible at best, I'd be willing to bet that "wait and see" is exactly what the government is doing. It doesn't make any sort of tactical sense to go after him right now. Let him be exposed as the narcissistic paranoid idiot he is and he becomes irrelevant. Pursue him actively... and watch the vitriol against you and your policies mount exponentially. The USG may be many things, but actively and willfully stupid is not necessarily one of them (note please that I am speaking about the government as a whole, not individual members; it's fairly evident that some of them are willfully stupid in many ways).

 

[TjW]

I have to wonder here...

Anonymous has thus far proven their capabilities when it comes to hacking into places, given the number of places they've hacked and exposed dirty little secrets the companies or persons in question didn't want exposed. Why then has Anonymous not made the effort to see if they can hack into the DoJ to find out what plans, if any, the USG has for Assange?

Honestly, Sabrina, I don't think that's any more possible than proving no ghost story is real, or that no UFO sighting has ever been an alien spacecraft. It's trying to prove a negative.

To the conspiracy inclined, lack of evidence is evidence. See how careful they are about hiding it? But if they hacked a government computer, and found a policy statement that advocated something like your wait and watch scenario, I predict the responses would be: How do you know that wasn't deliberately left for you to find? and That's just that department/agency/service. There are others, you know. (Darkly: ) ...and probably some that you don't know.

 

[John Mekki]

I really don't see the comparison between the two cases.

They were both cases of extradition to be handled by the UK Government

Pinochet was an ex-Head of State accused of crimes commited while he was a HOS, Assange is not and never has been a HOS and is accused of crimes commited while a civilian.

So, if you are an head of state, it is OK to commit crimes against humanity?

Pinochet was wanted for extradition to a country that did not have any clear legitimate Jurisdiction over the place where the alleged crimes occured. Assange is wanted for extradition by the exact country in which the crimes allegedly occured, thus there is no Jurisdiction issues.

The House of Lords stated that Pinochet could be extradited

Phinochet's lawyers argued that Phinochet's advanced age and mental condition made him unsuitable for trial. Assange's lawyers argued that it was all a conspiracy.

Pinochet was Chilean, Assange Austalian.
Pinochet old, Assange young
Pinochet far, Assange slim
I can write other differences here

Each of these three things made the Phinochet extradition difficult and a major legal minefield to navigate.

I assume that thousand of innocent people slaughtered are not worth "navigating a legal minefield", for you.

 

[tyr_13]

So? So you do think Assange should be extradited. Good.

 

[theprestige]

They may issue a statement about the crimes that Assange has allegedly committed in the past and related to the leak of information affair.

Why should the US limit its options in any way? Why should Assange be entitled to hold justice hostage for this outcome?